Should the small maps be required to be smaller like many of the older maps are?

What are you doing here then? Your arguments are so convoluted and illogical there's really no other way to respond...

Ok, let me try to simplify this for you: there's 2 groups of people, people who want to play large maps, and people who want to play small maps. If a size limit is set that forbids large maps, then small maps people are happy, they get the small maps they want, but large maps people are pissed off. If no size limit is set, then large maps people are happy as they get the large maps they want, and small maps people... are also happy, because they still get the small maps they want, because the absence of size limit does not mean that smaller maps can't be made.

i actually think that if we lift any size restrictions and allow mapmakers the freedom to do whatever they want, the foundry will regulate itself and provide optimal results.

no map maker will make a 2000*2000 px map if he can fit it in 500*500, at most he'll take an extra 5-10% for fitting some nice graphics. when he goes overboard he'll most likely be told by other map makers and he'll have to optimize space usage. and ultimately every map maker will want to make every little bit of space count and avoid unnecessary super-sizing because a huge map with lots of dead space will be unpopular and no mapmaker wants to be the author of an unpopular map.

“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku

natty dread wrote:What are you doing here then? Your arguments are so convoluted and illogical there's really no other way to respond...

Ok, let me try to simplify this for you: there's 2 groups of people, people who want to play large maps, and people who want to play small maps. If a size limit is set that forbids large maps, then small maps people are happy, they get the small maps they want, but large maps people are pissed off. If no size limit is set, then large maps people are happy as they get the large maps they want, and small maps people... are also happy, because they still get the small maps they want, because the absence of size limit does not mean that smaller maps can't be made.

It's not rocket science.

You have an unusually thick head natty. If something someone says doesn't appeal to you, you resort to saying that it's illogical/impossible/false instead of declaring why you don't think the same. It's like you were born without the sense of that sometimes there are not any rights and wrongs, just difference in opinions.If you can't follow my logic then tell me that instead of replying to it when you don't understand what I'm saying.Btw what you just said made no sense!"Small map people" won't be happy if they play random and a huge maps pops up. And don't tell them to not play random because it's a feature in the game and if having a large screen was required then there should be a warning of that. And also the same people can play on different screen sizes. Sometimes you may take your turn on your laptop, other times on your phone etc. So there's not even a such a thing as you describe.It's important that we don't have too many of these mega maps. And looking at the trends of the foundry I think that's exactly what we'll get if we have no restrictions.

DiM wrote:i actually think that if we lift any size restrictions and allow mapmakers the freedom to do whatever they want, the foundry will regulate itself and provide optimal results.

no map maker will make a 2000*2000 px map if he can fit it in 500*500, at most he'll take an extra 5-10% for fitting some nice graphics. when he goes overboard he'll most likely be told by other map makers and he'll have to optimize space usage. and ultimately every map maker will want to make every little bit of space count and avoid unnecessary super-sizing because a huge map with lots of dead space will be unpopular and no mapmaker wants to be the author of an unpopular map.

This only works if we don't have a big difference between what players want and what map makers want. I don't think map makers are afraid of making a map that isn't popular. I mean after all no map made nowadays can compete with the old ones in terms of popularity.

AoG for President of the World!!I promise he will put George W. Bush to shame!

Gillipig wrote:"Small map people" won't be happy if they play random and a huge maps pops up. And don't tell them to not play random because it's a feature in the game

Oh. Oh! Also, also, I really don't like playing hive, so they should remove it from play alltogether, because otherwise I might have to play it when I select random! Also, I don't quite like waterloo either. Let's remove that map too so I won't have to play it when it gets selected in random!

Yeah, random is a feature in the game, but the feature is "random", not "randomly chosen from all the maps I want to play". If you want a feature like that, then you should ask for that, but demanding that certain types of maps which many people enjoy should be forbidden just because you don't want to play them is... what's the word again? Oh yeah. SELFISH.

Gillipig wrote:This only works if we don't have a big difference between what players want and what map makers want. I don't think map makers are afraid of making a map that isn't popular. I mean after all no map made nowadays can compete with the old ones in terms of popularity.

That's such an illogical argument. Of course old maps get played more - people know them better, they have had for more time to establish a player base, and also, people are creatures of habit.

Are you really so dense that you think mapmakers only make maps because they want to make a certain kind of map, not caring if anyone plays it? If so, you really have no idea what you're talking about.